If the BM59 or M14 had been developed prior to the end of WWII, how much better would the infantry experience have been as a US soldier?
If the BM59 or M14 had been developed prior to the end of WWII, how much better would the infantry experience have been as a US soldier?
i would rather an m1 carbine myself
Tell us your thoughts on the mini-14
alright rifle for the time it was around
i think the ac-556 was cooler but of course gay nfa and such forbids it
but not taking ar mags even though the ar was around was a missed opportunity
They're have to completely redesign the magazine release to get it accept AR-15 magazines, which is kinda ruining the whole idea of "M14 but in 5.56"
true but i think it would have been more popular if it was originally designed for stannags
same as pccs that take glock mags
you would be more inclined to buy one if you knew it would work with stuff you already own
what scope mount is this? i've never seen one that has holes for the iron sights
Ruger explicitly designed it so there would be no parts compatibility with existing military rifles.
Modifying the Mini-14 to take AR-15 magazines would be very easy for them to do at the factory, but then the rifle loses it's semi-protected status. They are fudd rifles and that's a good thing for the poor sons of bitches stuck in AWB states.
>creates rifle that would survive awb
>supports gun control
bill ruger was a hack
It's unfortunate but millions of Americans support gun control and that isn't going to stop them from trying to earn a dollar.
>how much better would the infantry experience have been as a US soldier?
much better considering that it literally doubles their ammo capacity and simplified the reloading process
full-auto is limited by its kick, but its nice to have and would give a significant advantage over bolt-action rifles in close range
they would also do well to replace the BAR with a heavy barrel, bipod-equipped M14
though the real life M15 SAW was not up to the task, the exigencies of war would probably mean a highly accelerated development of an M15 that works
I think if you gave the M15 some of the additions of the M14A1 had and gave it a good muzzle break it would probably perform quite comparably to the BAR. It's heavier than the M14A1.
Not significantly. Having a semi auto was a massive edge in WW2, but a semi auto with a larger mag and select fire would bring diminished returns over the Garand. I don't think extra mags would be issued (the SMLE had removable mags but was only issued with one) and using select fire would would be aggressively penalized unless you were a BAR gunner. On that note, the BAR would be totally replaced and its users would have a much better time with a lighter gun.
>the BAR would be totally replaced and its users would have a much better time with a lighter gun
Not actually sure a lighter gun would make laying down suppressive fire better
The m14 would absolutely be better for the average rifleman, but for a lmg you actually want some weight
Retard take. Stay in your lane.
>European Theater
Negligible increase in the number of German fatalities to small arms fire (which already constituted the minorities of fatalities in most ground engagements, artillery still being the deadliest killer of all). I could definitely see them being rushed into service as a response to encounters with the StG 44 though.
The development of easily usable scopes (both the M14 and BM59 were both intended to be used in a marksman role from the very start) that could be issued at a platoon or even squad level would have been a far more significant game changer.
>Pacific Theatre
Even more massive increase in the number of Japanese fatalities to small arms fire.
11.5%
0 because it wouldn't be adopted.
Why not? The M14 pretty much represents what the US wanted out of an improved M1 Garand back in 1945.
weapons is bad 🙁
negligible. on average US soldiers already had the firepower advantage so it wouldn't have changed much.